Jenkins: Al Gore Is Good at Rent-Seeking (and Microsoft Isn't)

Current TV may not have been a success, but the ex-vice president's style of entrepreneurship is in vogue.

By

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Jan. 4, 2013 6:00 p.m. ET

As far as we can tell,
Al Gore
has managed to amass a Romneyesque fortune without ever satisfying a customer. The closest thing to an exception may be his board membership at Apple, where Mr. Gore earned his keep by leading the board inquest that exonerated
Steve Jobs
of any options-backdating peccadilloes. Doing so was unquestionably a service to Apple shareholders.

But, otherwise, his environmental investments have prospered thanks to government handouts and mandates. His Current TV, in the process of being sold to Al-Jazeera, attracted a minuscule audience in its seven-year existence. It averaged just 42,000 viewers per evening recently. Yet the payday coming to Mr. Gore will be somewhat greater than zero—$70 million to $100 million, depending on which estimate you prefer.

We never subscribed to the theory regarding success in life that "It's not what you know but who you know." We may have to rethink.

ENLARGE

Al Gore, former vice president and Current TV chairman and co-founder
Associated Press

What Current had going for it was Mr. Gore, who would drop in on media moguls and explain why it was in their political interest to put Current on their networks and dun subscribers five or 10 cents a month for a channel they never watch. Saying no just wasn't worth it to companies that must run a daily gauntlet of Democratic regulators in Washington. Not to oblige Mr. Gore would be to face, at every congressional hearing, the likelihood of some legislator lambasting them for "censoring" a progressive voice.

So the industry became habituated to transferring $100 million a year in what might otherwise be its own profits to owners of a cable channel nobody watched. These carriage agreements were Current TV's sole valuable assets. And the fact that nobody watched was probably not unrelated. If you're not pleasing the viewer, you're pleasing somebody else—usually in a way that makes for dreary programming. Living on the sufferance of cable moguls certainly didn't help Current put on rollicking liberal TV in the manner of MSNBC, which justifies its existence by actually attracting viewers.

But all gravy trains must come to an end: In a world of Netflix and cord-cutting, an extra nickel or dime is no longer so easily slipped past cable subscribers.
Time Warner Cable
was the first to bid good riddance, dropping the channel from its lineup the moment the sale was announced. Mr. Gore is clearly getting out just in time, though not before extracting one last political rent in return for using his famous name to help Al-Jazeera expand in a skeptical U.S. media marketplace.

Don't look for us, however, to milk the irony of Mr. Gore, warrior against climate change, pocketing a fortune from Mideast petrocrats. Mr. Gore has been in cash-in mode for a while. What's more, his style of entrepreneurship is the rising thing in our world, so respect must be paid.

Which brings us to this week's other news:
Microsoft
still tries to make money by selling consumers products they want, though it has launched some stinkers in this regard—the "Kin" cellphone line comes to mind. But its latest stinker was more up Mr. Gore's alley: a multimillion-dollar investment in trying to foment a government antitrust crackdown on
Google
.

That effort went conspicuously bust Thursday when the Federal Trade Commission let Google go with token remonstrances about its business practices.

Given the elastic principles of antitrust, there was nothing terribly far-fetched about Microsoft's effort to frame Google as a public utility that must be closely regulated. Many stranger things have passed muster in the intellectual cult of trustbusting. Where Microsoft went wrong was in failing to orchestrate the multiple points of pressure to convince five commissioners of the FTC that their own interests would be served by bringing a case.

If you think these things don't matter as much as the alleged merits of a case, think again. Recall the long drum roll of societal vilification that preceded the Justice Department's cautious decision to file a case against Microsoft. As FTC chief
Jon Liebowitz
acknowledged this week, antitrust agencies live to bring "big cases." The FTC staff, whose revolving-door career interests would be enhanced by a Google prosecution, was an easy sell. Less so the agency's political appointees who must decide yea or nay. The media wasn't clamoring for a Google crackdown. Congress was less than enthusiastic. The
Obama
White House, known to be close to Google, was disturbingly mute.

Antitrust is supposed to be entirely about clinical economics but never is.
FDR's
antitrust chief
Thurman Arnold
once said that antitrust was a collective squeal of resentment against businesses that annoy us with their success. Google hasn't been sufficiently annoying.

Notice, by the way, that the astute Arnold went on to found Arnold & Porter, one of the great Beltway law firms—and as much a model in its time of Beltway influence-peddling as Al Gore is today.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.